Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Add spilOverJtag for Virtex6 #437

Merged
merged 10 commits into from
Feb 28, 2024
Merged

Add spilOverJtag for Virtex6 #437

merged 10 commits into from
Feb 28, 2024

Conversation

UweBonnes
Copy link
Contributor

This is #307 reworked:

  • Fix some problems when compiling the xilinx spiOverJtag files
  • Refactor xilinx_spiOverJtag.v for better readability and extensability. At least all xilinx families compile.
  • Add code for virtex6 in xilinx_spiOverJtag.v and some boards used here.

If you feel uneager about the verilog changes, can you perhaps drop the rework and only add the bitfile?

Cheers

@trabucayre
Copy link
Owner

Amazing works thanks!
I have to check more closely verilog modifications but seems good to me, this adds some duplicate portions but seems more clear.
I'm just a bit hesitant about wpn/holdn and for csn/sck on fgg484 package

@trabucayre
Copy link
Owner

LGTM.
But by adding t for some constraints its maybe required to update corresponding board and rename bitstreams?

@UweBonnes
Copy link
Contributor Author

the t constraint is only added to one fpga file. And that bit file is added as a new file in the commit. So no need to recompile all xilinx bitfiles. But the compile also resulted in bitfiles not yet added. What to do with those?

@trabucayre
Copy link
Owner

True. I'm wrong. bitstream naming is unchanged so this as no impact on already supported board and bitstream.
Is a rebase is required? maybe for commit "spiOverJtag: Fix errors on xc6slx150tfgg484, but it's not really required. As you want

@UweBonnes
Copy link
Contributor Author

I see no real need to rebase.

@trabucayre trabucayre merged commit a2d8bc8 into trabucayre:master Feb 28, 2024
11 of 13 checks passed
@trabucayre
Copy link
Owner

Applied. Thanks @UweBonnes

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants